coverage and the national book festival, saturday august 31, starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern, our coverage includes author interviews with ruth bader ginsburg on my own words. david shroyer, the heartbeat of wounded me. share and robinson, her book, rick atkinson of the british are coming and thomas founding director of the mip center for collective intelligence. he discusses his book supervised. the national book festival, life saturday august 31 at 10:00 a.m. eastern on book tv on c-span2. the new c-span online store now has book tv products. go to c-span's door.org to check them out. see what's new for book tv and all the c-span product. [inaudible conversations]

>> iran the international security program. it's a privilege to introduce jim sciutto is a correspondent and cnn anchor and author of the new book inside china's operations to feed america. it was attracted to various forms and most of the wall street journal. and it has a lot of good critical success. you may not know the gym was also the chief of staff at the u.s. embassy in china so he knows the china story quite well. he is a graduate of yale university and a former fellow. the short washington with his wife and they have three

children. i'm going to turn over to him, he is reported around the world, asia, middle europe and middle east. i'll turn it over to him to make opening observations about the book and then open it up to q&a. thank you very much jim. >> thanks so much well of you for taking time out of aut busy sunny friday. i appreciate having you here as well. and thank you to peter for inviting me he was one of the first people to read a manuscript of the book early on and he did not throw back in my face or turn up or embarrass me. i thought i was probably okay moving forward. and he was kind enough to write one of the blurbs on the back of the book. >> i wanted to start how i came to write this book. what my intention is alsohioo te process that recognizes the

shadow, and connecting the dots on a number of fronts on which both russia and china to surpass the u.s. and these were friends of a shadow were that i experienced firsthand on the ground in ukraine as the little green man in europe in the 21st century. on a spy plane as china manufactured territory in the minutes of a half dozen allies. i went on to the arctic where u.s. reinforces our training to track more capable private, another stop in this work. i spent weeks traveling around the u.s. space command and the president has talked about a space force, the u.s. already

has a space force in the base command and there's already a space for on the way in the heavens above us. so i was traveling and of course many years both regarding russia and china is seen more connections that both russia and china are using with great effect. now you write about these things, talk about and colored by the political advisors. i want towe be clear it's not a political book. by both republican and democratic administrations in

their approach to russia and china. and just to establish the point section which a is the last three paragraphs of the book. it gets to my personal motivation for writing this. if you'll bear with me. >> i write my personal motivation in writing this book is far political. i'm writing this as a concerned american. i voiced thought thatl living overseas weakens your patriotism. yes you have to better identify your country's weaknesses from abroad they can also better recognize and its vision there's no? it has far more to offer the world the china and russia. thee shadow were is in large pat of battle of those visions. i see this book as to my fellow americans to the sport and the threat at present to what our country holds dear. although we try to do is live at the greenpoint in society and

detect the cutting edge of history. the shadow war has one defining cutting edge of american history. and i feel that. i spend a lot of time overseas as a journalist covering china, covering russia, covering the wars in the middle east which is where first encounter peter berger. serving most of the time as a journalist but for a brief time as chief of staff to the u.s. investor in china. and as i saw the outlines of the shadow war, i also found that it tshook my sense of country in is place in the world and i have three kids and i want their future to be as free and peaceful as my present impasse has been. and that is part of the reason why felt the need and the drive to connect the dots in a way and talk about this in the public conversation that i don't hear journalist talk that much but i

certainly do not hear lawmakers or presidents speak about it too much. i'm going to the beginning of the book, it gets to another reason that i sat down to write these pages. a consistent error of the shadow war and again, uncommitted by republican and democratic presidents in them and she should is misreading russia and china. as a benefit to the first people i think my acknowledgment to having spoken to a good couple of dozen u.s. intelligence officials, military commanders, diplomats and european diplomats and intelligence officials who have served multiple a ministrations. and they gave very honest and self-critical insight to say, we missed us, we persisted, even delusions.

michael hayden director nearin mirroring that we look at russian china and imagine that they want what we want. even in the face of contradictory information advance. the fact is, theyan do not wanto what we want. does not mean we have to go to war but they have different interests, aspirations and want to play by different rules. that is one mistake. the trouble is committing that mistake when you contradictory evidence. i begin the book with the poisoning, you remember about this time lester on the streets of salisbury, to russian agents used literally the most powerful nerve agent ever developed in the history of the i world. to attempt to kill him and his daughter. they thankfully and most

miraculously survived in a british woman who picked up what was a bottle of perfume in which the nova check was hidden and put on her wrist and she died within days, her partner survived aswi well. you remember that range from this. and i spoke to numerous european and diplomats "after words" and they said, this is different. we've never seen anything like this, russia has been aggressive but now they used an nerve agent to kill someone a british oil,di speak with an intelligence official who describes how later discovered how the two russian ages brought in to kill these two people but they brought in enough too go thousand, so rash that the kremlin revealed that this was okay on the very top in the past two agents with enough nerve agent to threaten the

lives of thousands of birds, you know what we can w get away with this. no problem. as i was covering that story i said this sounds familiar. when i was live london 12 years before i remembered and covered the successful assassination of another on british soil. the really powerful radio activation. let me read from the opening chapter. >> in 2006, 12 years before the poisoning alarmed the world he had recalculated it could get away with murder on western soil. it be proved also i correct. britain's response was to expel for russian diplomat, a full decade after he died. in 2007 to the u.s. congress with opposing shins under the magnetic ski act, one of the two murders to be targeted by the united states.

the penalties for the 2006 operation delicately majored in long-delayed were clearly insufficient to change russian behavior. perhaps laying the groundworkk l for repeat on the streets of salisbury in 2018. to add insult to injury, one of the assassins with the elected member of the russian state where he still serves today. two deadlype operations on westn soil using weapons at that the lives of thousands carried out under orders from the russian president 12 years apart. for russia it is difficult to identify one single attack as opening battle of the shadow war on the united states and the west. the events of the last decade show to consistent and disturbing lines. growing russian aggression and nspersistent western delusions about western intentions. the same pattern is regarding china which is launching its own inaugural bottles in another arguably dangerous shadow war on the united states.

in that you see two consistent errors. one be persisting in the face of contradictory evidence such as to alarming murders on western soil. but also the response being too weak to be change the behavior. you tried to murder someone on the streets of uk and threaten the lives of thousands, we will make public statement cortical, impose sanctions 12 years later in russia could do it again and they did. we will invade a country in europe, sovereign coventry and continue to occupy the territory in the east you will stop sanctions and make critical statements but lo and behold five years later we still controlled the territory. we in the case of china will create unthinkable aircraft characters in the south china sea. you'll make contradictory statements and fly and sale by

the islands in the one bold four years later we still hold the territory in increasingly militaries in the highlands despite making a promise to the u.s. president they would not do that. those errors over time and that's all we have met here. i want to get to the man in front of the shadow war. these are the thoughts that i tried to connect. i think americans, that shows you what a nervous topic it is. americans are where of some of the fronts and we talk about the on cnn and you will hear about it on the halls of congress, people are where russia had interfered and we talk about that a lot. they know that russia and ukraine, we talk a little bit about the islands in the south china sea but explain the idea that this challenging sovereign

borders, that idea and treaties enforcing the idea have kept the peace in europe for decades. it's important when a nation violates those and is allowed to violate those. that's another front. how many folks know russia and china have deployed weapons in space? >> you normally want to ask a question and not as many people raise their hand. >> he did his research i hope you will catch up. there is a chapter in here on this in a did a documentary for sina. able to move from orbit to orbit, to circle like a predator circling its prey and multiple orbits o and disable the satellites either director energy weapons or old school just remade.

even the not horrible can be obstructed and can do a lot of damage. china has in addition too, because he likes satellites deployed with the space command calls kidnapper satellites. they can also grab satellites right out of orbit. hollywood is a good 20 or 30 years ahead of the game on this stuff. do they target our technology? we are more advanced than any other country in the world but more dependent on it. smart bombs are not smart without gps satellite. drones don't't fly, anybody ever been with your soldiers, i've been amazed when they take the laptops and opened it up and find the read-out system and a bag guy on the other side. that is a combination of

satellite-based communications and surveilling technology that allows soldiers on the ground to be around of their surroundings. and with the thoughts are cominr from. we are more advanced and dependent but also the issue is you take out a few of those, paralyzed to be too strong of a world but you disable the powerful military in the world. and i speak to a lot of deployed military commanders that say i don't know if we do how to fight today without the capabilities. the u.s. navy iss teaching folks how to use and again, just in case if the han and open the situation again. >> that's the shadow of war. another one under the waves in a whole chapter on submarine warfare. again probably not ahead of the game. twider submarines are first attack weapons, russian china have been deployed faster with

more difficult for them to track. that is a problem because that weapon can be shown on the coast of s your homeland and if they t through and have gotten through before, in the event of war without wording and you will see join up off the coast of 40. i'm sure you're familiar with the story of chinese without warning. interestingly the chinese not doing so well in the nuclear subcategory but they have capable electric subs which in some circumstances are quieter and good at doing this. as another front in the war. particular focus on this book on the arctic because it's another field of play in the great game because of the eye shrinks are more accessible, passage, submarines are an extension of

american and russian power out there. another front in the shadow war. of course cyber act as well. but there's a whole chapter on china extremely successful effort to steal u.s. private sector and public sector and intellectual property. i focuscu on one gentleman, stephen sue who is a chinese businessman with a lot of friends in the u.s. and over the course of four years, he stole hundreds of gigabytes of data on the f35, f-22 and f17 through the most advanced military aircraft. today, china is flying through direct that looked remarkably like the f35. stealing works. i speak to bob anderson former head of counter until with the fbi who is involved in the case and he said the fbi is where

about 10% of what china is up to in terms of these operations. he makes the point they don't even need the physical guy on the ground in the u.s. is as much anymore and he talks they have tens of thousands of capable chinese basically doing what he refers to a national service program for the government of hacking into u.s. systems and they do a damn good job of it. if you think china is a more subtle player in this game, think again, bob anderson was been involved in a lot of these cases in a former cop in delaware, he talks like a cop and i'm going to read the way he describes chinese intelligence. the chinese are more vicious than the russians. anderson told me pausing to make sure i was listening. they will kill people at the drop of the hat. they willroe kill families, a h

more quietly inside of china or one of their territories but the absolutely if they have to will be a very vicious service. underestimate how the other guys are willing to operate. i think the final point i will make before that peter grow me and members of the audience roaming as well. isa.been another mistake that successful presidents have calculated that they can get these relationships right. remember george w bush looked into putin's eye and saw somebody he could work with and learned later not so much because the invasion of georgia. president obama, hillary clinton, they hit the reset button months after the invasion of georgia, it did not work out so well him around to figuring it out.

president trump is calculated and still calculates that he can get it right in some way. now in russia he will not call out the russian behavior with a whole host of friends. with his twitter account or many other forms raise given opportunity to do so. china he's been more aggressive particularly trade secrets etra cetera. the question is, has his approach changed or solidified chinese behavior? we will see that over the weeks and months to follow. again, as a comeback to this it is a pattern of years, a pattern of learning, if you speak to submarine commanders you speak to the commanders of spy planes and if you speak to folks inside the operations center, intelligence officials, they

speak about the threat from russia and china and very clear terms. theyey are desperate from leadership from the top. you do not hear the discussion from the top or from the halls of congress. and that is what you need to articulate and pursue strategies pushing back. final point, the final chapter is a host of solutions and tactics as part of a broader strategy to put back against this. i pulled a half a dozen smart people with former experiences in me, jim, john, ash carter, a load crystallize that at the end. a all of them come back they cannot pursue that in a credible way unless you have an articulated strategy from the top and backing of the top.

all the way to thehe top they sd they don't have that. that is the shadow of war and i look forward to my interrogation. [applause] >> thank you jim, the first big question, there is a version of asia or is there more expensive that they want to replace as a world superpower. or do they not know just working it out, what do you think? >> the latter. the emissions have grown over time and i speak a lot to andrew erickson present a good amount because he teaches us at thearll naval war college. he describeses in 1949, action prior to that china laid out these goals in detail of how they were going to approach

their power. the first thing, let's solidify the control in china. in solidify control and the environment. watch the history, that's the 50s, strengthen, build the military, go after the first island chain, second, what they refer to the near seas and a later date the parties. et cetera. and you seeing in their moves, for instance the man-made islands 600 miles off the shore but they now have enable port in sri lanka. lenahan the military, elton road is designed to extend its power. you see very active on the african continent in latin america. give economic interest and slowly but surely establishing capabilities beyond to help enforce his interest, bigger

picture question that folks will ask me, which is a bigger threat russia or china. when you ask the intel folks they will put russia and china at the top and say russia short-term more dangerous and longer-term china is th the real threat because of the capability of overcoming the u.s. in time. not guarantee but a capability to stronger economy, bigger population et cetera. does china want to surpass the u.s.? absolutely. we read the editorials and this is about regaining their rightful place on top of the world. that is the way they look at it. >> because they feel as they have been humiliated. >> exactly. russia has a similar victimization monument set going

back not as far to 1991, the collapse of the soviet union. they were humiliated and klobuchar was no better than me and a villain not a hero. chinese leaders study the collapse of the soviet union. they say we don't want to do that. >> so you were in the obama ministration watching for the chief of staff. it did go to the chinese and they knock off. in the intellectual property, intrusions and it kind of worked at least for. >> i talked to rick who is a former deputy director of the nsa and highly involved in this. he said after obama delivered the warning that there was a

discernible downturn in activity in terms of volume but not a substantive change in china aggression. it is still in terms of what they were taken away in the private public sector. >> there is a book by the chinese liberation unrestricted warfare which they lay out what they're going to do. what is it that they're going to do and you talked about a lot of it, just in general they know it there was no point to try to compete on that level. so what is that report? >> their approach is asymmetric, the shadow war is bite asymmetric warfare because they no russia and china cockily. russia b cannot in the territory in europe by rolling the tanks across the borderks in china ina carrier on carrier, young ukrainian thing right where they

made progress but they're not going to build 12 aircraft carriers. so they do it in asymmetric fashion. the strategy of public essay about this laying out hybrid war off et cetera. chinese call it something different but very similar, winning without fighting. the idea again, finding ways for david to be goliath inor militay terms and this is a piece of the shadow were that i have not emphasized yet, but i do a lot in the book, below the threshold of where the u.s. reacts consequentially or by shooting back in effect. for instance, let's send agreement into ukraine, take the territory, slowly but surely you

have it and there's no war. similar with china in the south china sea. the thing is, over time they stretch the threshold. so if you're successful there and put a little bit further, i'll give two examples, what do folks in the u.s. i national security worry about his next front, their nato members. article five et cetera but with the u.s. really go to war to defend estonia today the president question the usefulness of nato or when parker colson was a segment on a show questioning whether u.s. boys and girls go to die for sonja what is a man thingo about that. if you go to the pentagon, they talk about taiwan.

with the u.s. go to work today if china invaded taiwan? what if they did it more slowly. these are questions. mention nato, from looking at the russian and chinese perspective. it is been highly 30 and multiple things that we've done. what is the about us in terms -- because you're portraying that they have a plan and expanding. how do they cs? >> you mean fresh in china. >> a couple of things, i don't want to entirely equate them although it struck me, the strategies are also similar with two consonants, languages, history, et cetera. similar approaches bring but the view of us is not distance.

they spent a lot of time in china and you hear some of this and russia that america is a declining power. they look at us as having best days, laugh a little bit with our internal divisions and issues that we have shown in they seek to exacerbate those divisions and issues in a talk about this a lot in the book, the interference was not toid advantage or disadvantage one candidate or another. it was to expand the fishers and that works. michael talks about if you take any protest in the nfl or russia trolls were very active. the russians could help drive that wedge and deeper. when you really save involved in this early, the trolls were screwing up the # instead of take a knee they were calling it

take the knee. it's hard to get the particles right and some of the russian trolls reason the wrong # because her into black lives matter. so they've u.s. as declining and seeing our best days and they d also seek to accelerate that in any way that they can. >> the trump administration, will they say basically over the big thing which is china and russia as a nonplayer. but the big thing, you have to write -- the freedom of navigation and exercises, and put pressure on them. is it too early to tell what the story will say, is it something to the idea that is more or less getting it right even though the tactics are wrong? >> to give credit where credit ist due trump is confronting

china on bad trade practices on previous presidents did not. when i was at the embassy in beijing and amaze me, u.s. companies of course knew they were getting raped and their technology stolen and access denied or restricted and so one but they were so afraid and reported to us, they said don't make a "i don't want you to ignore account they were worried about being punished more or denied access. almost battered wife syndrome and it's changing now and companies getting more public about it. . . . you open china is economically it will liberalize over time then you just add beer i don't want to go there because i will be punished more. so, trump is confronting that in a way that was necessary

frankly. the trouble is knowing the chinese psyche if you beat china over the head with a baseball bat and say we are telling you to change your economic model which you have calculated this in your national interest and you've calculated that i served you pretty hopeless and a half to three decades who could argue with the results of several hundred million out of out of poverty. if an american president comes and says change it or i'm going to slap tariffs on you if that's you in a position where to make a deal, you have to back down. i often make the point that it's an authoritarian regime that has domestic politics and this prevents them from being caught doing on the predicates.

we are not in a month-long trade war, we are in a decade-long trademark with china. the adversaries beat them u up n a school that hurts on canada, mexico, iran. you better cut a deal with that. north korea, we are going to squeeze economically. where has that worked so far select >> now through in world war ii of the cold war by basically a -- getting these things right is

hard, but there is a sort of [inaudible] istrikes me as sort of interesting. is that a reasonable why do you think that is. >> on the saudi arabia relationship and set up as a false choice.

the u.s. has had a credible long-standing relationshipsin wh friends they can't test it on these issues while maintaining security. >> republican and democratic presidents but now this administration, none of those issues are priority. >> it seems you have the trump position in it than the rest of government position. it seems somewhat robust. how would you characterize that split if it sanctions people and what differencee if anything dos it make? >> >> a couple things in cyberspace, and i talk about this in the book, cyber command, i am sure most in the room knows

this better than me, we've been able to use measures to a piece of david ignatius wrote in the washing can post about basically go out and a attack before they come. the battlefields in space they've been given more flexibility than the obama administration was willing tole grant the. you could easily get to an escalation type of situation. credit where credit is due. on the flipside as you know this president hasn't made this priority in one cabinet level meeting. can you have and all of government response to speak to folks in that space they say to me all the time you need a whole of government response. another one where you have this contradictory response where yes and this started under the obama

administration the deployment of u.s. forces in eastern europe and a small contingent of in poland and more exercises and all that kind of stuff, so that's good in terms of determining when you have that at the same time a president is saying will leave really defended a nato ally, what signal does russia read as more definitive, but is he saying it's not a big deal to me? we don't know yet, but there is concern. >> that raises an interesting question. he's been quite lucky and if you go back to the george w. bush before 9/11 could that happen

again, what would it look like? >> we thought about that. it's been replaced as the principal surveillance aircraft and we were flying over these man-made islands and got challenged by the navy eight times and they became more and more aggressive. >> what did they say? >> this is chinese sovereign territory, and get out. now, they did not at that time have deployed aircraft so they couldn't scramblcould scramble o challenge you in the air, the they are doing that more now. so, think of china's growth in military and economic power and

ambition in the two decades since china less likely to back down saving face domestically if you're to have a coalition like that. it would be a heck of a lot harder to find the offramp if you had that kind of coalition. >> i was on the ground for a couple of years we would meet with a love of chinese groups of all ages and i have one stuck in my mind we met with college students and we were talking about the south china sea and what struck me is the college students 18 to 22 i asked them to questiohimthe question and ta question you will hear from u.s. military strategists are the u.s. and china destined for

more, a lot of conflicting interest. what struck me is decades old fooldfont yes but the professors didn't come from a different generation but the kids three out of four said yes. think of that generation is being a generation that only knows china on the rise. parents and teachers remember the depths from which they came. i'm not saying that because 25 university kids but that is just one data point that stuck in my mind you read the editorials in the papers and listen to the response there is an increasing bravado. >> anytime a rising power is accommodated but obviously britain and the united states

share sort of a language. how do you come down on the issue? >> me personally i don't think it is inevitable. av have to do a lot to avoid or reduce the chances into some of that is in the finalth chapter. one is with cyberspace into space so you have to set the rules so you could avoid the path to conflict. you have to set up retreating io

economic silos but we are a long way from that because we have so many symbolics interests so a so you hope that makes a difference. it's one of the reasons why it again going back to the more dangerous one because you don't have those kind of a connection, plus russia is a declining power, a little bit of a chip on its shoulder are they more likely to swing back. >> what's up in a few questions. raise your hand and wait for the microphone.

>> i am a national security analyst. i was recently asked in event at brookings and they said if putin did by trump, he might be having buyers remorse. that they have been quite tough on russia. >> my question is how do china and russia interpret the administration's national security strategy and national defenseat strategy that refocuss the u.s. cover competition specifically naming chinaa and rurussia for the first time sine the end of the cold war? >> it is a fair question for debate. president trump and the administrationss have taken stes the prior administrations have

not. more aggressive cyber activity. en gave, for instance more offensive weapons, to step in the obama administration. there are a lot of restrictions but i'm citing examples of things the prior administration did not do. on the playert ni side, the president and his public comments won't point out the election interference and watered-down distinctions as there have been a lot of reports on that. you have some conflict there and tthen of course the president's comments about the nato alliance which is aol tool for pushing bk against russia, you and your european allies together pushing back so, you have cognitive dissidents in the midst of that policy. so, i don't think that the president could credibly say

that it's a different approach. in some ways it is weaker. how does that all fits together that is the question, and has ae president recognized and acknowledged the degree of threat and articulated for the american people what he's doing about it i would say no, but it's a fair question how does that fit together when they've done some things but not others and some of it is conflicting. if you listen to the supreme allied commandere of europe, the way that he talks about russia, okay i guess we are okay. when he travels he makes them feel fine and the president says something and he gets called in sayinsaying what is it, i don't. we don't know.w so, that conflict is important and you have to as i was saying earlier which one doesn't listen to moore, doesn't this and the supreme allied commander of what is coming from the president as he make those calculations.

>> this lady over here and then we will come to the front. >> i'm a fellow at the stimson center. i was wondering if you could take the u.s. out of the analysis fo for limited to the relationship can russia and china using tactics against each other and how competitive is that relationship in your opinion? >> a lot of folks ask that. there are, like any country, where the interests coincide they might be working on the same side of things. if you watch north korea for instance both russia and china like to make themselves involved. there's a reason both russia and china are helping north korea and sanctions. how did they make so many advances. there is iranian health and you have some spoiling going on but both of them are doing but to their interest not like they sat down at the table and said let's

do this together. there are areas they are a direct conflict if you look at of russia will population there is a lot of influence where russia is very concerned about it, so they are not working together and there's other places they are working against each other. primarily though they are both interested in straight up surpassing the u.s. and in russia this case dragging down the u.s. where it can kind of in a zero-sum game. >> to any degree we are diminishing the u.s., we are adding to our own powers. >> the gentle man i gentleman it here. >> since 1962, i've worked in government on u.s. military and intelligence ways to deal with threats from china and russia

but since tiananmen i'm equally in both debates are involved in human rights innd china so my question relates to the last comment as to one of the things the u.s. can do in a way to avoid the trap which was treaties and agreements. for a country like china that daily violated statutes and constitution and many, many international treaties regarding torture and international relations at the drop ofal a ha, and that kind of country what good do you think that the treaties would do in terms of protecting us except violating the warnings that we do that all the time.

>> it is a great question because part of the shadow war was intended to disrupt the the international rules-based order that the u.s. helped put in place to reduce the chance of conflict of a whole host of organizations and from russia and china's perspective, they see that is fundamentally skewed against vader. with that said they do make treaties when they are in their interest to. if you look at russia as a violation no question that is the problem. we would like to hold ourselves up as being the great defender of international treaties but if you look at the last couple of years it was a treaty negotiated

by the u.s. and the president has questions about the treaty of climate change agreement. if you are a foreign country and partner says wait a second or u.s. politics are so divisive and on a pendulum that if i sign a treaty with the government here in the next election it's not going to be worth the paper that it's printed on so they ask what kind of partner are we for those treaties and we also have to gain back credibility to create the circumstances from that. >> you've spoken a couple of times to the divisions and it seems in a very real way we aree much more focused on the threat

of the other political party then we t t are on russia or cha or climate change or any other threat we face. so to what extent is this problem about not being able to have leadership recognizes and takes seriously the threats come up to what extent does that reduce the problem of the u.s. politicall dysfunction, and thee we are again very much as you sit in their interest to exacerbate. >> responding to things it hasn't quite seen yet and in the example of 9/11 if in august of 2001, george tenet said listen, the american people walking through detectors you have to take your shoes off at planes because they pretty p love chatr

and this is the place to prevent this we would have been like i'm not going to do that. what is the pearl harbor that's going to strike action. you could argue that the election was. it's a bold impact full strike at the core institution of the country, a presidential election and get because of the division, you have close to half of the country and a president that won't acknowledge it as a real thing seemingly because it diminishes his victory that evened the facts are that it's not just the president because i'as i'msure you've talked to ps it really that big, $100,000 worth of facebook ads. we clearly haven't read the eula report and people just persist with that because they can't b t go. have we already seen the pearl harbor but not reacted to it

because of the division, that is a huge problem. trade is interesting because on that part, we do have a pipeli pipeline. a lot of the disagreement is about how we reactno to it the reason a lot of folks think that the trade for will be years and years long are they going to pull back from challenging china, maybe not on that issue there is more agreement. how can forward if you can't focus on the same side. >> my question for a second, the

type of warfare that you described is one that the pentagon has problems with and one that the u.s. aid and state department have problems with because it might be in w their purview. they don't like to use the words words. they understand this and are willing to engage in the way one word a classic threat mobilizing the elements. >> i think finally, yes. it take u time, but you are rigt it's hard to capture the attention of the public or lawmakers on the hill because there isn't a big hole in the

ground. that's part of the brilliance of the strategy because it is meant to be a shadow below the threshold. it's not just the kind of spectacle. a day know that if you sit down and meet them and they call themselves space warriors, they feel like they are. it's harder to grab the attention. the it's not as visible and tactile. probably harder to spend money

on things. forget about the money part. it's harderr to focus attention but at least they are talking about it i'm collecting strategies and taking some of the steps, not all of the steps. i write of section sections in k how in 2015 the general bit of space command raised the alarm in the classified section said you ought to get it together because we are getting our butts kicked andck here's what you out to do. so, those folks are thinking in those terms but we are not in a name those terms. >> when i did a scan of your book -.

the position to claim the arctic as their space just yesterday. >> i froze my tail off to talk about that. >> there have been some very arresting things going on than. >> i do talk about that and they have an arc of steel on the coast with dozens of airstrips and naval bases and loads of subs deployed, plus the

icebreakers. the u.s. navy has how many? zero. the coast guard has two. they say operational, but the navy has not, russia has like 2,000. so, our primary weapon in is a submarine to. britain had dropped out of it and now they are back into it so you have a sense of the allies that have to do better. they have enormous damage back doing his best to track veterans and so on. so there's definitely a tension being focused. russia has an enormous force to managed. little green men in ukraine the russian forces in venezuela are straight up uniform patches on

their arms they are not hiding military interest. it is more like in a way you can kind of look at the way russia might look at the u.s. and ukraine but russia did believe it was concocted by the cia so it is definitely a if it had happened earlier it would have been a chapter in the book on the shadow war. >> and then we are going to wrap it up.

>> in the 21st century seems shot, china and the united states have been burned a lesson and pointed out among others by kennedy and the rise and fall of great nations had become a superpower in the victory. >> i'm getting increasingly pessimistic i take heart that some developments like those in europe and the green new deal and some other efforts, progress oprogressive efforts i was calld getting traction, a lot more attention and support here in the u.s.. and yet, he grew up on the 1984

or more recently, he and batess failed to make a >> handmaids tail and some others already now we saw in nazi germany. the question is where do you see ththe long-term optimism especially when every time that u.s. gets into war we've never really been out of this and if they are violated and oppressed and become more and more like those we are opposing. >> yesterday the head of the defense intelligence agency gave a talk at hudson and this

would've broughthat's whatbrougf reality that we are up against the two forces. you have to think to yourself how far do i go to defend my country. you're left saying if i say something wrong, i am gone. >> there's no sighting at the end of this and at fort sumter this is the beginning of it. it's sort of begins silently and

that's part of the issue you have to make a long-term change to push back but to keep it to a low smolder. but we have to adjust to the strategy if you want to effectively push back. here's the thing thi that is happening politically there's a drive to pull back and that is a part of the appeal and the strategy we don't want to get caught up in this anymore. i don't know that i swallowed this entirely, but there is

evidence. they want the u.s. and asia to counterbalance china because they don't wantnt to get a leado they like the international-based order they don't want to be told what to do area they don't want to be b dominated, but they do not mind having the u.s. police presence there. you may hav have a lot of pushbk in europe, but will they like it if russia successfully carries out a there are benefits to us and our allies having thus present. so as nice as it would be to walk back, we would pay a cost for walking back. if you are asking about what we it, call your congressman,ca be aware, and alo

the aware of those that are already pushing back.re i've met them. i'm impressed by them, in short many of you know them and someby of you probably are then, so i think we are going to be okay. [applause] speaketh

all of the authors were able to push through whatever barriers they had it right openly and honestly about their deepest struggles. one that comes to mind it is such an honest account of grief and loss and also reflects the state of the world today. this isn't an uplifting book. >> sunday at 7:45, princeton university professor on race, gender and class i have to arm

them not simply with a set of guilt and intellectual tools that allow them to flourish and ethics and values but also ways that make sense if the hostility that they encounter every day from people at times whose responsibility is to treat them as community members. >> all decency has been cast aside but not to his opponents. they called him far worse things. they are attempting to do far worse than what they accuse him of doing to them.

we are in gaithersburg and it is the best city. we are pleased to bring you this fabulous event and truth be told, i'm super jealous. but more on that later. thanks in part to the generous suppor